So what Fantasy Writer am I?

I don't put much faith in tests likes these (well, basically none now that I think about it), but they are still fun to take.

This one was point out by Joshua, and it was hard to resist. Turns out that my result wasn't much of a surprise, as it came out to be J. R. R. Tolkien.

Close. I'd rather be lloyd Alexander to be honest, but Tolkien is a close second and has more fame to say the least. Besides, I bet the test didn't even include Alexander as a possibility.

Those interested can take it here themselves here.

Reaching out and touching someone

After dealing with the issue of fire support, the next item was long range precision fire- or a sniper rifle as most people would call it.

As I reviewed the matter and considered how a team might operate I realized that what I wanted wasn't actually the classic sniper and his rifle, but instead what is called a Designated Marksman.

As a member of a Project Team, their role would be to support the maneuver of that team. This is a different role than that of the classic 'lone wolf' (or pair of wolves as the case may be) sniper team. And it calls for different weapons and training as the ability to deliver rapid fire is a major concern.

Once I settle that question, the next was the desired chambering. I could stick with the same 6.8mm SPC that I selected for the main Assault Rifle, adding a scope, longer barrel and other improvements over the base rifle. The advantage of common cartridge should be clear. However that round isn't well suited for long range (up to 800 m) use.

Changing it would improve the proformance of the weapon at the cost of a different ammo type. Here I had two choices: the 6.5mm Grendel and the tried and true 7.62mm Nato. The latter became a clear choice given that I had already selected it for the M240E6 Machinegun. I might not have a common cartridge with the assault rifles- but I'd have a common cartridge with my team fire support.

That just left the rifle itself, and the HK 417 with 20" barrel was the natural choice given my previous selection of the HK 416 as the standard rifle. Common design would make things easier for the users in the field.

Selecting Team Fire Support

Continue with Morrow Project weapons choices, the next up is fire support for the team- i.e. some sort of machinegun.

The US Military uses the M249 SAW, however fires the rather wimpy 5.56mm NATO round that I've already dismissed as unsuited for the Project. It does have it advantages, especially in the role of suppressive fire due to the ability to carry larger amounts of ammo. Throwing some lead down range is almost more important than killing anything with it. So it was tempting, but just not tempting enough.

That didn't leave me with many choices as not much effort has been directed towards SAW development of late. There is the IAR concept, which in many ways strikes me as a return to the famous BAR. But like the Army, I just can't buy into that concept.

This left me with basically two options- either rechamber the M249 for the 6.8mm SPC to match my rifle choice, or go with a general purpose MG instead.

I decided upon the latter, and since the campaign starts 'near-future' the M240E6 with it's titanium receiver for weight reduction suits perfectly.

I'm a little less certain in this choice then my previous ones. But I doubt the players will be unhappy. Most of the advantages offered by lighter weapons/ammo will not impress them as in practical terms the weapon will be far more used to put heavy fire on target than it will be for suppression.

Picking a Sidearm

Picking back up my sort of series on my Morrow Project game, I needed to select a standard sidearm for the team. For the Project this is a more important selection than for the military due to conditions under which it would operate. As the saying goes, the best weapon is the one you happen to have with you. Often that may be a sidearm as there would be no 'safe' areas, and the teams would be too small to count on just the assigned sentries for protection.

The US Military currently uses the M9 pistol in 9mm for its standard sidearm. Sadly this was a poor choice, driven more by NATO treaty requirements and ignorance than need. We've used that pistol in past campaigns and it was without exception hated by the players. So I rejected all 9mm options out of the starting gate.

The US Coast Guard uses a rather nice pistol in .40 SW, the Sig Sauer P229 KAKTM. A true law enforcement weapon in an acceptable chambering. However it lacks any special spark for me, being a very workman style weapon.

The other intelligent military option is an old one- the M1911 .45 ACP that's approaching a hundred years of use. It's currently in service with Marine Force Recon units as well as law enforcement across the nation.

Slighly upgraded, but still in design basically unchanged I love this pistol having owned a number in various chamberings. It has a stouter recoil than the .40 SW, but one that with practice can be dealt with easily even by people inflicted with arthritis such as myself.

So old school will be the best school for the project.


Or as Colonel Robert J. Coates said: "The 1911 was the design given by God to us through John M. Browning that represents the epitome of what a killing tool needs to be. It was true in 1911 and is true now."

Morrow Project Reading Material

Over the last couple of weeks I've been talking a bit about our upcoming Morrow Project campaign. I typically do a fair amount of research for any campaign, and while doing that I came across this book which is excellent inspiration/background for the type of people our group will draw a number of characters from- as well as a real life glimpse into the type of mixed technology/culture enviroment a project team could find itself neck deep in.

And it's not bad for getting some background on the real world either.


De Oppresso Liber

Everything on a Silver Platter

Back in the old days, kids in schools got the grades they deserved and if they failed- they could only blame themselves. Somehow that viewpoint got changed, and anything but the student was to blame- eveyone was equal and everyone deserved an 'A'. That switch started around the time I entered public schools in the 60s and is in full flower today.

And one of the results of that change are rpg posts like the this.

One has to wonder at a person who would take a major life lesson (i.e. deciding that all you need to be a hero is luck) from a hollywood movie. But it fits, after all what other reason could it be when any person is just as good as anyone else. They all deserved the 'A' of being a hero, they just were foiled by evil luck.

And the solution offered is simple minded as those used in modern schools. Give the kid an 'A' because he tried as best he could. Or as Tom W suggests- Give them Luck mechanically- so that they always have it with no 'luck' required.

I have a simpler solution, if you're losing 75 characters over a 2 year campaign- maybe someone should learn the play the game better. Maybe, just maybe characters should earn the right of being a Hero instead of having it given to them.

Or maybe you should change rule systems to something easier, despite the fact that even the so-called 'deadly' games (including Shadowrun, Call of Cthulhu, and Dark Heresy) are rather easy to survive if that is the desired group goal.

The last thing one should do is add a Fate mechanic. You may as well not even play the game, just get together and hand out the loot and the XP. Leaves more time for pizza and achieves the same end result.

More on the Star Trek Movie

As I said in my last post, I really enjoyed the movie. They got the characters and action/adventure tone of the original series right- and anything else is nitpicking.

But let's pick the nits anyway- and how they would impact an Star Trek rpg...

1. They turned the Enterprise Warp Drive into a Star Wars hyperdrive.

In the original show, the Enterprise was a combat capable FTL warship. That is, it considered fighting at sublight speeds to be crippling, it would be akin to a modern warship fighting while using habor tugs to push it around. The episode Elaan of Troyius showed that very clearly although the concept appears throughout the original series.


"Maneuver? Aye.We can wallow like a garbage scow against a warp-driven starship", Scotty- Elaan of Troyius


Star Trek TNG and latter undermined that concept, and the new movie completely removes it giving the Enterprise a Star Wars style hyperdrive where they can't even see what's front of them until they basically hit it.

I myself like the original much better, and it was a special hallmark of original Star Trek as FTL combat is very rare in Sci-Fi.

From a rpg PoV, it greatly alters things allowing the GM to rule that the player's ship flies into rocks or wreckage, and generally makes them blind as bats to what they're sailing into. It also means that one should be able to quickly disengage from battle (like the Jellyfish did in the movie)- and there's no indication as to what can be done about it. The Narada was chasing, but other than ramming it was unclear as to what it could do.

Unless you like players running away when the going gets tough, you'll need a method to deal with it. I suggest reverting to the original show's method. The old ways are sometimes the best ways.


2. Too much problem solving by Transporter

The original writers guide as I recall pointed out this danger. The transporter ideally should be used to get you into an adventure, not out of one. It's way too easy to make the transporter the 'save our a#$ button', and they did that in spades in this movie. Oh, and transwarp transporting is just beyond the pale- now you don't even need ships to move between planets.

For a RPG, control this better. Play up the "must stay still" and the long time period needed. Unlike the movie, remember that you can't use the transporter through shields. How in the world did they forget that little issue...

You're almost forced to say they were never able to get Transwarp Transporting working without serious chances of horrid things happening after that one time. Do something, or you'll find that your players will wake up and realize that they don't even need to take a ship to your adventures...

3. Jumping someone six grades in rank and giving them the best ship in the fleet.

What can I say? I suppose if one doesn't care about suspension of disbelief- go for it. Silly games are fun sometimes.


4. Mining Ships armed with massive weapons systems

Generally in an rpg, again for suspension of disbelief reasons- you want ships to have capabilities suited to their role and use. This saves your players from WTF moments.

Note: It turns out that there is some backstory to the Narada. It salvaged advanced technology (that allowed self-repair and grew the ship in size) and weapons from a disabled Borg ship. Yes that's lame, but it at least explains things.

5. Use the original "Where No Man Has Gone Before"

Because being PC is being boring, both in english and in fact.


To any of you running a Star Trek campaign, good luck. Wish I was there.

The New Star Trek Movie

I've long been a Star Trek 'fan', well sort of. The first couple of seasons of the original show has long been my favorite TV series due to the characters, the humor and the adventure. However after that the third season was often poorly written, and everything that came after was worse with each step- hampered by more poor writing, far more boring characters, overwhelming political correctness, and a self-importance that attempted (and failed IMO) to make it more sci-fi than action/adventure at times.

Still, given my fondness for those first two seasons it was obvious that I'd try a Star Trek rpg campaign some day and so I did. I created my own ship combat system, used HERO System for the characters and the original FASA rpg for support material (we did try their rules for a game or two before ditching them). In total across a span of years we did two campaigns in that setting.

Success was mixed. We certainly had fun, but there are three major problems that IMO makes Star Trek the most difficult rpg campaign to run.

• The resources of a Starship are immense. This is why so often the series (and the new movie) cuts the characters off from those resourse. Sadly this gets old adventure after adventure
• Some players have problems with a formal chain of command, even if they otherwise in practical terms follow an informal one in any other campaign.
• One ship- many players. I have yet to encounter a Starship combat system that can handle this with a degree of fun equal to the normal one character per player ratio. FASA tried and failed IMO, and most games don't even try.

Still I wanted to give it another go because when it works, it works well indeed. But I was outvoted and Morrow Project will be our campaign for a while now. Sniff.

Oh, the movie. Went to see it last night.

Lots of fun, with most of the characters and actors dead on. The Enterprise looked fantastic, and makes me forget about all those horrid A, B, C, D, E and NX ripoffs that were forced upon us.

I could point out many issues with the plot, and otherwise nitpick. But I'll pass, such detaild don't really matter. This is the best Star Trek since 1969.


Ok, one nitpick. Can't resist.

The engineering areas of the Enterprise is a beer factory*? Really? Am I the only one who thinks that looked stupid? Wouldn't have patterning it to look like, oh I don't know- a ship's engineering room had been a better choice

On the other hand, maybe it will help, the secondary hull looked cut off too much IMO towards the aft bottom. A good solid brew should be able to add some weight and fill that out...


*Actually when seeing the movie, the first thing I thought of when seeing the Kevin's engineering/hanger sections was that it was filmed in someone's factory (true) and that the Enterprise engineering/hanger sections was a milk processing plant. But it was beer plant instead.

Submachineguns, what are they good for?

Now that I've decided upon the main rifle in my new upcoming Morrow Project campaign (featuring new and improve alien mayhem), the next item on the list was to be Submachineguns. The original game included a number of different models, and I turned my attention towards them with fond memories, but then reality dashed those rather quickly.

What would I use these for?

Things like the MP5 are five and half to nearly 7 lb weapons. Meanwhile the HK416 carbine with a 10" barrel is 6.7 lbs. That's not much of a weight saving, and the recoil of the HK416 isn't meaningfully worse for the typical character- so that's not a significant advantage either.

And the 9mm round the MP5 fires is worthless compared to even the worse of assault rifles, let alone the 6.8 SPC round that I settled on. Why would I want a less powerful, much shorter range weapon that basically weighs the same?

There are smaller SMGs to be sure, but those bring into play isssues of control as the lack of weight and size reduces one's ability to keep the weapon on target when set to autofire. Sort of counter-productive isn't it?

Some are small enough to use as concealed carry (i.e. like the Secret Service has been known to to do). That's useful enough even with a bit of control problem (countered by using the weapon at very close ranges), but the Project isn't the Secret Service and has little need for this advantage.

The one area when they do show some promise is that they can be fitted more effectively with a suppressor to muffle the sound and flash of a shot. The new H&K 2000 can even be set to vent gases to reduce standard ammo to subsonic velocities to take advantage of that. Rather cool- and rather specialized. Not something the typical team member would ever use although I could see them be used by specialists here and there.

They do also have the advantage of not blowing through walls and killing people you don't want to kill. But there's AR ammo that gives you that ability if needed.

So, nope. No standard issue SMG for the Project although they may appear in specialist teams. Oddly enough, the US Military and I agree on this point. They have dropped them as standard issue as well, although they remain in rare use because of their suppression advantages.

What about PDWs? These are what SMGs are developing into. Things like the FN P90. Meant to overcome armor while being small and more easily carried... well, meant to be anyway. They are at least better against armor than previous SMGs were.

But the problems here remains much the same. The P90 is 5.5 lbs unloaded- only a 1 lb saving over the HK416 Carbine. Just not enough of a difference to make up for the disadvantages IMO. The MP7 is another lb lighter and much more compact and might almost work except...

...that the International Wound Ballistics Association current viewpoint is that they lack the stopping power of normal SMGs (let along rifles) against unarmored targets.

Nope, I'll have to pass on them too. Just not enough to be gained for what is lost.

SMGs were wonderful weapons for WII and preceding. But that was then and this is now. Their day is past outside a very narrow role. Time to move on to other weapons.

Combat Rifles- The Search for Perfection Part II

Yesterday I settled on the HK 416/417 series of rifles for the standard in my upcoming Morrow Project Campaign. But I didn't really settle on which of the two. Ideally the Project would only want to issue one weapon with one chambering. So it's a choice between the .223 (5.56x45mm) and the .308 (7.62x51mm).


The .223 allows one to carry more ammo for the same weight/space. It's light recoil is well suited to female users and older less fit males, a serious consideration for the Project. One can recovery from firing and quickly fire again (major concern for close quarters battle- CBQ), and the weapon is controllable on auto-fire. The light bullet however is often less than effective against humans, and unsuited for any larger creature.


On the other hand, the .308 is much more effective bullet for bullet, able to handle any North America big game and better suit to dealing with the left overs from the alien invasion that caused the Project to come into being in the first place. It is however heavy both in weight and in recoil. Quick recovery from shots in CQB is an issue.



So it's a bit of damned if you do, damned if you don't decision. Makes one wish there was something inbetween doesn't it? Well, it seems I'm not the only one with that thought.

Members of SOCOM working with Remington attempted to address this very issue with the 6.8mm Remington SPC. The problem here is that there's no current or planned US Military Rifle chambered in this, let alone the HK416/417. However that doesn't mean that one couldn't be- it was designed for AR15 pattern rifles and it should be easy enough to modify the HK 416.

Selecting this last option however means cutting oneself off from using non-Project ammo found along the way (which would likely include .223 and .308 but not 6.8mm).

Also from a background PoV, it means the Project had to produce it's own weapons and ammo for deployment rather than 'buying off the shelf'. Less of a problem in my campaign as it had Gov. backing, but still an issue.


So much for reality, how does this stack up in game terms? I use HERO System and have my own real world conversion methods for firearms. Let's take a look:


HK 417 .308 20" Barrel:
Damage: 2d6+1K
Stun Mod: +1
Armor Mod: 1 point piercing
STR Min: 14
CQB: -3 (modifier to DEX only to determine order of action).
Shots: 20
+1 OCV, +4 RMod (match barrel modifier added)

HK 416 .223 16.5" barrel

Damage: 2d6
Stun Mod: +0
Armor Mod: 0
STR Min: 12
CQB: -2
Shots: 30
+1 OCV, +2 RMod


6.8mm SPC 16.5" barrel
Damage: 2d6
Stun Mod: +1
Armor Mod: 1 point piercing
STR Min: 12
CQB: -2
Shots: 28
+1 OCV, +2 RMod

The STR MIN above are unmodified, but lets add a Muzzle Brake for a -1 modifier and another -1 for the inline design advantage of the AR15 pattern rifles, reducing the STR Min for all the above by 2 points.

The clear winner in my mind viewing the game stats is the 6.8mm SPC (which matches my opinion in the real world). But does that make up for drawbacks of using such a non-standard chambering?

The upside of doing one's own campaign is that one gets to write or even rewrite history. I could easily say that the US Military got off it's backside and switched to the 6.8mm SPC after its testing was completed. Or I can say that the alien invasion resulted in the switch, perhaps not completed by the time the Project was equipped- but it was well underway.

With that in mind the question becomes one of:

• Do I want to use one of the other two chambering to give the game the air of 'Gov't FUBAR' or not? The .223 is perfect for that option.
• Or do I want to use the best gear for the job?

I'm leaning towards the latter right now, and unless I change my mind before the campaign- the standard rifle will be the HK416 chambered for the 6.8 Remington SPC.

Perhaps as I pick the other Project weapons that will change.

Combat Rifles- The search for perfection

Those who know me, know that I have a great fondness for things military (and great respect for the US military). That interest resulted in some semi-serious study of weapons, ballistics, etc. Research that I've applied to my house rules for firearms in HERO System.

This last week my attention has turned back to this other hobby of mine with the decision to start another (heavily modified) Morrow Project (MP, or just 'the Project') campaign for my group. MP for those who don't know is a post-apoc rebuild the world style campaign. I mixed it up with an alien invasion being the cause of 'The End' together with some Gamma World stylings for max coolness.

Decades have passed since the original game was made, and one of the first decisions I need to make is what type of gear do the players get. The original lists are outdated. The first question in that line- what rifle does the Project issue?

Few people quite understand that basically no nation has selected a outstanding standard issue rifle since WWII (when the M1 Garand was the perfect weapon at the right place and right time).

Many have selected rather poor weapons such as France (FAMAS) and England (L85A1) while others have selected effective (despite their limits, which are significant) weapons- US (M14, M16) USSR (AK47).

For the Morrow Project campaign, I wanted to use the most up to date US deployed combat rifle, or perhaps a soon to be deployed combat rifle.

To date, the M16 series remains the main combat arm of the US. It a effective weapon, highly accurate for what it is, low recoil, and one is able to carry a lot of ammo. However I've never really like it.

The shell is too small IMO and too often fails even against unarmored human targets. And in this campaign the Project knows that thin skinned humans will not be the only danger its teams will face.

Also for the Morrow Project's core mission of operation with little to no logistic support (a given for the Project during the first months of operation)- it's high maintainance requirements makes me look elsewhere. So off I go looking at near-future rifles.

The US Military development of combat rifles has a long and sad history. They've basically been looking for the next rifle since I was old enough to know what a rifle was. And they've never selected one.

The Advanced Combat Rifle program basically said that unless you can vastly improve the M16A2- we're not interested. And rifles can't be vastly improved unless they are no longer rifles (i.e. they must fire explosive shells), so that resulted in the Objective Individual Combat Weapon program which ended up saying that you can't get weapons like that down to a weight/size that can be carried.

So then they decided to split off the close range 'kinetic weapon' part of the OICW to make a new rifle... and then once again decide that it didn't offer vast improvements so they canned it.

Sigh. What a #$%# waste of time and money.

My own opinion on this is that while you can't get vast improvements- you certainly can do better. The M16 is under-powered and requires too much care. Fix that and you have a better weapon. The devil is in the details, and often that's what kills people. I'm happy with something 25% better, or 10% better, or even 5% better- for that saves the lives of some of our people and kills some more of the enemy. And that is the name of the game.

So for my coming campaign I've turned towards what the various US Special Forces are using as they often get the option to go outside the box on weapon selection. Here we hit some paydirt, as they seem to share my opinion of the M16/M4 series. However it seems they can't make much in a way of decision either and have been trying out a bunch of things never making a final decision.

These are however two leading weapon systems: FN SCAR, and the HK 416/417.

Both come chambered in 5.56x45mm NATO and 7.62x51mm NATO, the latter is solid and powerful chambering suited to the dangers of my Morrow Project campaign while the former would suit older and female characters without the strength need to handle the heavier version.

Both series offer greatly improved maintainance and reliability over the M16 series.

Some sources have stated the SOCOM has selected the FN SCAR, but others indicate that they really haven't received them in numbers yet- or haven't even ordered them (see the talk page from the wiki link).

For my own campaing use, I'm picking the HK416/417 weapons. I like the look better (less bulky), and the fact that it uses current M16 series parts outside the reciever is a major plus both in speed of deployment and in the possible use of spare parts the players may come across.

Now if only the US Military procurement monkeys can be as decisive as I....

The Future of Roleplaying

I'll toss my two cents into this month's RPG Blog Carnival, a cute little thing where one answers a list of questions. Basically just hot air as we're not the movers and shakers, but here we go for what it's worth:

What games do you see emerging as the big players in the near future?

Same ones that have been the big players for the last 30 years. D&D, and some mix of those companies that have lived in its shadow for decades.

Oh there might be something new that comes along. But I wouldn't bet money on it- or I'd be publishing my own game line.


What companies should we be watching out for to release the next big product?

Next one for me will be HERO 6th edition, however 'big' here isn't good. I expect it to break the system and result in the downfall of that company. I hope someone good buys what's left.


How will technology become more integrated into roleplaying games?

I don't see anything significant on this front, i.e. nothing more than some growth of what we already have.

I don't play these games for their technology, and until technology can adapt as a fast as I can- it just can't keep up with me.


What industry writer do we need to be on the look out for?

Steve Long, for the evil to a classic system he's about to do.


What blogs do you see exploding into becoming the next big thing?

No idea really. Whatever one it is, it will likely be D&D focused for that's where the readers are. Imagine the Old School blogs will still do well- because they're still D&D focused.

This one will be barely noticed if noticed at all, just like it is now.


What do you see for the future of the industry?

Slow decline in sales and in number of players as game designers continue to lose touch with what people want in gaming.

My own games will continue on as they have.

Failures to Understand Middle Earth

It's something of a sad world when people can't tell the difference between Tolkien's Middle Earth and the world of Warhammer. One is the very definition of High Fantasy, and the other a excellent example of Dark Fantasy.

Noisms is so much a creature of the post-modern mindset, that he finds it impossible to tell the difference between a world of conflict where evil wins because there is no good (Warhammer), and a world marred by conflict where evil is completely defeated (Middle Earth). He mistakes the battle and passing failures for the outcome and the meaning of the struggle.

High Fantasy isn't about darknesss and failure- it's about overcoming darkness and failure. Simply put that requires darkness and failure along the way so that it can be overcomed. That's how it works.

In his error I think Noism is a common example of how people think these days. So focused on the 'need' to see all points of view as equal- that they've lost the ability to think at all. Everything is the same, to say otherwise requires judgement. And judgement itself is an act of discrimination (the only true evil) to the modern mindset.

A sad world indeed.